Mohd. Dawood vs Shabeer Ahmed
2004 Latest Caselaw 1195 Del

ORDER

C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining violation of the order passed by this Court on 18th October, 2000 in C.R. No. 142/94. The order reads as under:

"Petitioner No. 3 is stated to have since died, his name be struck off from the memo of parties.

The respondent has given an undertaking in Court stating, inter alia, that he will vacate the suit premises on or before 30th April, 2003. This is acceptable to learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The undertaking is accepted. The respondent will be bound by this undertaking and the other terms recorded in Court today.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of."

2. The undertaking given by the respondent is reproduced as under:

"Statement of Mr. Sabeer Ahmed son of Shri Abdul Hamid resident of 1770, Gali Meer Jumla, Lal Kuan, Delhi on S.A.

I am the respondent in this case. I undertake to vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner on or before 30.4.2003. There are arrears of rent. I undertake to pay the arrears of rent on or before 31.12.2000. I undertake to pay the future rent/ occupation charges on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month. I undertake to pay the electricity and water charges to the concerned departments. I undertake not to create any third party interest in the suit premises. I undertake to maintain the suit premises in a proper and habitable condition."

3. Despite the undertaking given to this Court, the respondent has not vacated the premises in question. During the course of arguments on the last date of hearing Counsel for the respondent conceded that vacant and peaceful possession of the premises was not handed over to the petitioner. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2004 the respondent was granted another opportunity to purge the contempt by handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the petitioner within three weeks. In spite of undertaking given of this Court and the opportunity having been granted for purging the contempt, the respondent has failed and neglected to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner. The respondent has also failed to show any cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt and has also not purged himself of the contempt.

4. Counsel for the respondent states that he will be filing an appeal against the order dated 18th October, 2000. Till date the appeal has not been filed by the respondent. Perusal of the Court record and the orders passed by this Court from time-to-time, it is apparent that the respondent has deliberately, willfully and contumaciously committed contempt of this Court and has not complied with the orders and directions and has thus ex facie interfered in the administration of justice.

5. The Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, has held Contempt of Court' to mean disobedience to the Court, by acting in opposition to any authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a willful disregard or disobedience of the Court's order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of Court and the administration of law in disrepute.

6. In the case of Arundhati Roy, , the Supreme Court observed as under:

"Rule of law" is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. Our constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of rule of law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is no one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the Courts that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duties and-functions effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs."

7. In the case of Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), the Supreme Court opined that the judiciary is only the guardian of the rule of law and the third pillar but in fact the central pillar of a democratic state. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the Courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in act whether inside or outside the Courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the Court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the Court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.

8. No person can flout the mandate of law of respecting the Courts for establishment of rule of law under the cloak of freedom of speech and expression guaranted by the Constitution. Such a freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by any law. Where a provision, in the law, relating to contempt imposes reasonable restrictions, no citizen can take the liberty of scandalising the authority of the institution of judiciary. The law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process.

9. The respondent having given an undertaking to this Court had willfully and deliberately breached the same. Thus, the respondent is held guilty of contempt of this Court. He should be punished for disobeying the orders of this Court.

10. Having regard to aforesaid discussion and considering the contumacious and disdainful conduct of the respondent, I am of the view that the respondent has willfully violated/disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 18th October, 2000. Thus, respondent is held guilty for the Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. I sentence him to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.